Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Policy Area
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Keyword
Program Calendar
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Search Tips
Introduction/Background:
While school finance reforms aim to improve educational outcomes, the mechanisms leading to change remain unclear. Finance reforms typically increase funding equitably, but how these dollars translate into staffing expenditures requires further investigation. Support staff and school leaders play critical roles in student success, yet their labor markets are often overlooked in reform analyses. Understanding how finance reforms affect non-teaching staff is essential for comprehensive education policy evaluation.
Purpose/Research Question:
This study examines how Washington State's McCleary finance reform, which provides districts with additional funding and salary requirements, affects salaries and turnover for principals, vice principals, aides, counselors, nurses, psychologists, and social workers. We investigate both the magnitude of salary changes across different staff categories and whether these changes vary by district characteristics, particularly those related to resource allocation levels.
Methods:
Using OSPI's S2-75 database for information on staff FTEs, assignments, and salaries from the 2013-14 to 2023-24 school year, we employ a comparative interrupted time series approach. Our analysis utilizes a dosage measure that simulates the level of resources predicted to be allocated to each district in the 2018-19 school year, with districts assigned to terciles based on these simulated allocations. This approach allows us to identify differential effects across district types. Additionally, a two-stage simulated instrumental variables approach assesses the impact of salary changes resulting from McCleary on staff hiring, turnover, and mobility, utilizing both reduced-form and two-stage least square approaches to strengthen causal inference.
Results/Findings:
Preliminary results from first-stage analyses demonstrate substantial variation in both the magnitude and timing of salary increases following McCleary across different staff positions. In some cases, results indicate significant variation across terciles within staffing groups. Notably, counselors in Tercile 3 saw a 2019 total final salary increase $5,240 greater than counselors in Tercile 1. Even more dramatic differences emerge for psychologists, where those in Tercile 2 saw a 2019 total final salary increase $16,000 greater than in Tercile 1, while in Tercile 3 this increase was $18,100 greater than in Tercile 1. These findings suggest that McCleary created substantial salary differentials across districts for critical support staff. We have completed the first-stage analyses examining salary changes, and will next estimate the effects of this reform on turnover.Â
Conclusion/Implications:
Understanding these effects is vital as research demonstrates the significant impact of support staff on student outcomes. Improved student-to-counselor ratios have been evidenced to enhance academic performance and discipline outcomes, particularly for economically disadvantaged students and students of color. Recent evidence indicates teachers value counselors and nurses more highly than substantial salary increases. Similarly, principal turnover—higher in Washington than teacher turnover—disproportionately impacts high-poverty districts, rural schools, and those serving students of color, with research showing declines in student performance following leadership changes. By examining how finance reforms translate into staffing resources, our findings will inform policymakers about mechanisms that directly affect educational equity and student success, potentially guiding future reform efforts to maximize positive impacts across all staff categories.